U3K and Interference

[youngump]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Correct. For that matter, it is quite possible it aided the defense if it caused the ball to deflect to or in a manner which it gave the defense an opportunity that did not exist prior to the contact.

So you answered my A or B question yes, but with your explanation I think you're saying A. If so:

Catcher drops strike three which hits the backstop hard and then hits the runner who a) has not had time to move. B) Has taken a couple steps toward first
In either case the ball hitting the runner prevents the charging pitcher from easily fielding the ball for an easy putout of the runner

Interference in B, the act was moving into the path of the ball, it interfered with a play on the runner
No Interference in A, the BR did not commit an act.

Is that correct?

[DaveASA/FED]

Originally Posted by youngump

So you answered my A or B question yes, but with your explanation I think you're saying A. If so:

Catcher drops strike three which hits the backstop hard and then hits the runner who a) has not had time to move. B) Has taken a couple steps toward first
In either case the ball hitting the runner prevents the charging pitcher from easily fielding the ball for an easy putout of the runner

Interference in B, the act was moving into the path of the ball, it interfered with a play on the runner
No Interference in A, the BR did not commit an act.

Is that correct?

I'm not trying to answer for Irish, but no that's not correct. Rule 8.2.F.6 tells us they are out if they interfere with a dropped 3rd strike, intentional or not don't have to make any act just have to interfere. Is that fair? Who knows but it's what the rule says!
F. When the batter-runner interferes with:
1. A fielder attempting to field a batted ball.
2. A fielder attempting to throw the ball.
3. A thrown ball while out of the batter’s box.
4. By making contact with a fair batted ball before reaching first base.
5. By discarding their bat in a manner that prevents the defense from making
a play on the ball.
6. (Fast Pitch) A dropped third strike.

[MD Longhorn]

"Interferes with" and "gets hit by" are two COMPLETELY different things.

If a batter-runner INTERFERES WITH a thrown ball (part 3 of this same rule), he's out. If a batter-runner GETS HIT BY a thrown ball that hits him in the back (or clips him in the heel ... like the OP), it's nothing.

Same on D3K. Same rule - different lines.

Yet for some reason you guys want to create a higher standard of avoidance on the BR for part 6 than any sane umpire would for part 3.

[DaveASA/FED]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

"Interferes with" and "gets hit by" are two COMPLETELY different things.

If a batter-runner INTERFERES WITH a thrown ball (part 3 of this same rule), he's out. If a batter-runner GETS HIT BY a thrown ball that hits him in the back (or clips him in the heel ... like the OP), it's nothing.

Same on D3K. Same rule - different lines.

Yet for some reason you guys want to create a higher standard of avoidance on the BR for part 6 than any sane umpire would for part 3.

I don't disagree with your thrown ball analogy but I beleive the more important analogy is what happens on a hit ball. A D3K is a ball that has been put in play much like a hit ball. If the BR hits a ball and starts to 1B and the ball bounces up and hits them (out of the batters box) are they out? Yes, even if they didn't do anything. So I think we need to have the same thought pattern we would on a d3k as we do on a hit ball, not compare it to a thrown ball.

[MD Longhorn]

The rule regarding a batted ball says, clearly ... if the runner is hit by the ball (blah blah blah) - not if the runner interferes with the ball. It's worded entirely differently ... on purpose. If they wanted these two situations to be analogous, they rule we are discussing would say, "if B/R is hit by the ball" and not "if B/R interferes with ..."

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

The rule regarding a batted ball says, clearly ... if the runner is hit by the ball (blah blah blah) - not if the runner interferes with the ball. It's worded entirely differently ... on purpose. If they wanted these two situations to be analogous, they rule we are discussing would say, "if B/R is hit by the ball" and not "if B/R interferes with ..."

Yes; and no.

Remember (or be advised if you didn't know) that I used to be one of "they", a member of the ASA Rules Committee; in the years interference rules were revised to mostly eliminate intent. And this was part of that batch.

Philosophically, the committee discussed interference as fitting different niches in the accountability scale. The philosophy was also based on equity, not giving either offense or defense an unfair advantage in any case.

At one end, there are the rules where the offense just must avoid at all costs, and is fully accountable; avoid a fielder fielding a batted ball, avoid an untouched batted ball don't hit the ball with a dicarded bat, those cases where the offense "actively" interferes. At the far end, don't make the offense accountable for something the defense fully controls; the opportunity for a defender to try to implement kickball rules and just hit the runner with a throw when the runner has no control over the throw (and generally no opportunity to avoid it if it is thrown at them).

Then there is the middle ground; the "wreck" near the plate when BR exits and F2 is chasing a bunt (one where no one is wrong), and this, where you COULD see both sides not being in the wrong and neither fully accountable. Not the batted ball end versus the thrown ball end of that spectrum.

Back to my original and not very definitive post in this thread. The defense must be given an opportunity to make a "play", and the offense cannot "interfere" with that opportunity. This isn't black and white absolute, it's JUDGEMENT, it's why we get paid the big bucks. Know the intent of equity and creating the fairest and most even possible balance between the offense and defense.

Nope, there isn't ONE absolute answer. If you need one, try a different game.

[EsqUmp]

The biggest issue is who created the so-called interference. Batter-runners are not expected to disappear. If the ball ricochets off of the catcher's shin guard and hits the batter-runner, that's not an act committed by the batter-runner. It's an act of the catcher not catching the ball nor fielding it cleaning. Catcher's cannot create interference by playing the ball poorly any more than a batter-runner can create obstruction by going out of her way. The interference and obstruction rules exist to create a level playing field, literally. Those who are quick to blame the batter for striking out are neglectful in appreciating that the catcher couldn't catch the ball either. Batter-runners shouldn't be expected to know how a ball is going to deflect off of a catcher any more than they are required to jump through hoops as a runner on a deflected ball.

[youngump]

Originally Posted by DaveASA/FED

I'm not trying to answer for Irish, but no that's not correct. Rule 8.2.F.6 tells us they are out if they interfere with a dropped 3rd strike, intentional or not don't have to make any act just have to interfere. Is that fair? Who knows but it's what the rule says!
F. When the batter-runner interferes with:
1. A fielder attempting to field a batted ball.
2. A fielder attempting to throw the ball.
3. A thrown ball while out of the batter’s box.
4. By making contact with a fair batted ball before reaching first base.
5. By discarding their bat in a manner that prevents the defense from making
a play on the ball.
6. (Fast Pitch) A dropped third strike.

No, it's not what the rule says. For a batter runner to interfere with something they have to be committing the rulebook definition of interference. Paraphrasing: "an act the impedes or confuses." If you're definition were right, then all the catcher would have to do is toss the ball into the runner for an out. This is not dodgeball.

Interestingly, though in reading what you posted, I noticed something I hadn't before. The rule for interference with a thrown ball by the batter runner does not apply if the batter runner is in the batters box. Suicide play batter bunts down the first base line poorly (ball goes right to the charging F3). To give the runner more time on the play, the BR remains in the box positioned between where the fielder will get the ball and where the catcher is set up. F3 has to take a few steps out and throw to F2 who is now just late on the tag. Legal play?

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by youngump

No, it's not what the rule says. For a batter runner to interfere with something they have to be committing the rulebook definition of interference. Paraphrasing: "an act the impedes or confuses." If you're definition were right, then all the catcher would have to do is toss the ball into the runner for an out. This is not dodgeball.

Interestingly, though in reading what you posted, I noticed something I hadn't before. The rule for interference with a thrown ball by the batter runner does not apply if the batter runner is in the batters box. Suicide play batter bunts down the first base line poorly (ball goes right to the charging F3). To give the runner more time on the play, the BR remains in the box positioned between where the fielder will get the ball and where the catcher is set up. F3 has to take a few steps out and throw to F2 who is now just late on the tag. Legal play?

Nope. That BR would be out for interference, and the runner returns to third. The rule you noticed applies to situations like when the batter-runner is running in her lane to first, but she raises her arms and a throw from F2 hits one of them. Her staying in the batter's box to affect F3's throw is an act with clear intent to interfere. She has no business just standing there when she hit the ball fairly.

[Tru_in_Blu]

Originally Posted by Manny A

Nope. That BR would be out for interference, and the runner returns to third.

I think we get 2 outs on that play.

8-2-G

[youngump]

Originally Posted by Manny A

Nope. That BR would be out for interference, and the runner returns to third. The rule you noticed applies to situations like when the batter-runner is running in her lane to first, but she raises her arms and a throw from F2 hits one of them. Her staying in the batter's box to affect F3's throw is an act with clear intent to interfere. She has no business just standing there when she hit the ball fairly.

I agree with your result, but I'm not convinced that this really a fair way to read the rulebook. What exactly is the exception in place for? I'm having trouble imagining the BR getting hit by a throw while still in the batters box without it being this kind of thing.

[Altor]

Originally Posted by youngump

I'm having trouble imagining the BR getting hit by a throw while still in the batters box without it being this kind of thing.

How about this...

R1 on second, 2-out, 3-2 count. Ball four called as R1 attempts to steal third. F2 throws the ball to F5 but the throw clips the BR who started toward 1st, but had not yet left the batter's box.

[tcannizzo]

Originally Posted by Altor

How about this...

R1 on second, 2-out, 3-2 count. Ball four called as R1 attempts to steal third. F2 throws the ball to F5 but the throw clips the BR who started toward 1st, but had not yet left the batter's box.

This is INT. B/BR is only protected in the batter's box if they are motionless. Any movement that is not part of the actual swing is interpreted as actively hindering.

We are also wandering off topic which is U3K